I never thought I was interested in celebrity gossip.
Not gossip in the traditional sense – with stories of over doses, death and rehab – but celebrity gossip in the political world.
I used to look down on those who fanned through recent issues of Variety and People, believing their interests served no purpose or no greater understanding of the world around them, and that I – a political junkie – could rightly claim my interests served a better purpose.  
But the Democratic primary has me questioning the validity of my comparison.
Time moves at light-speed in the political realm – elections, speeches and controversies come and go with surprisingly little reminiscence. The infamous Iowa caucuses took place Jan. 8, a mere three months ago, and I can hardly remember them.
That time span seems like an eternity. And since those caucuses, daily crises and controversies have plagued the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Accusations of racism, deception and sexism are thrown around almost routinely – only the harshest of which make it to the evening news.
The number of attacks thrown around every day by both campaigns is staggering, even for those who follow these types of campaigns regularly. 
Prominent political blogger Andrew Sullivan is currently taking a “mental health break” from campaign coverage so he can “remember what it’s like not to have an opinion every 23 minutes.” And though Sullivan has vastly more experience than myself on campaign coverage, I can certainly relate.
A few months ago, I welcomed any discussion about the primary; I even welcomed arguments.
But constantly forming concrete and passionate opinions about every single thing that surfaces during both campaigns’ daily conference calls is exhausting – and, perhaps, not even that important. 
So now that there is an electoral calm – at least until the Pennsylvania primary – I am taking the time to reevaluate the significance of paying attention to the daily bickering.
When Geraldine Ferraro, a prominent Clinton supporter and fundraiser, told a local newspaper that Obama’s success was owed to the fact that he was born a black man, I was pissed.
I believed her comments were subtly racist and – given that she was chosen as a running mate for Walter Mondale in the 1984 based on the history-making potential her gender offered to the Democratic ticket – ironic.   
But now I suspect those comments were not racist or ironic; they were just a kind of empty speculation. 
Of course Obama probably would not be running for president if he were born of any other race or gender. In fact, if he were simply born a few minutes later than he really was, he may not be running for president. 
Ferraro’s remarks were just a bizarre speculation on chaos theory – kind of like that Ashton Kutcher flick.
In hindsight, it was a dumb controversy. Ferraro was simply doing her best to defend Clinton, and many Obama supporters have been involved in similar situations.
This week, the newest controversies involve the difference between a “senior lecturer” or a “law professor” at the University of Chicago and whether Obama’s handwriting appeared on a survey that proved he is a liberal, as if that were not already ridiculously obvious.
What these “controversies” amount to is gossip – and nothing more.
But it is a challenging task to not get sucked into this type of drama. I have often found myself bypassing important news, like the breakdown of security in Basra, to find out instead how candidate “A” responded to an attack from a supporter of candidate “B,” and whether candidate “B” has denounced, rejected and beheaded his supporter. 
Even American Idol is beginning to make sense to me.
Actually, the Democratic Party could learn a thing or two from American Idol. First of all, Idol allows people to vote by text messaging – I cannot think of a better way to increase voter participation.
Second, the selections on Idol are based on the national popular vote, none of that confusing caucus nonsense.
Finally, can you imagine Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell overturning the popular vote to select the contestant whom they deemed the best?
Of course not – there would be chaos. The creators of Idol understand superdelegates do not work, so why can’t the Democratic Party?
Now, none of this means I will not continue to pore over the campaign drama – I will. It satisfies the seemingly universal desire for drama within me.
And it is not detrimental as long as the issues at stake in the election are not forgotten. 
Because when you forget about the issues and focus solely on the partisan, dividing politics of elections, you become like Rush Limbaugh – and nobody wants that.   
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]